Michele Bachmann and submission question at the debate

Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By Boomygrrl
  • 1 Post By MichelleBFT
  • 2 Post By geeky

It pains me to write this but I think that the question about submitting to her husband was inappropriate. I'm not ready to say that Chris Wallace is sexist, but the question would have probably not been asked to a guy (the scripture says that the husband submits to Christ and the wife submits to the husband).

Okay, now I'll go throw up.
How women running for office are treated by the media should outrage us all (it does me) but typically we get more caught up in whether we like the candidate or not and therefore cannot see objectively-and worse, join in. I am astounded that people cannot see it.

I am not a Palin fan, however, how she was treated in the media (just compared to men-I am not talking about anything else she brought upon herself) should have had women everywhere rising up and this woman will be treated no differently (I do not know enough about this candidate to know if I am a fan or not).

Palin was asked, if you remember, how her children would fare (who would care for them, etc.) if she was in office. I really cannot remember any man being asked who would tend his children if he was president or VP.

I think that it is sad to see other women chiming in as badly because, again, they do not care for the candidate themselves. Many of my facebook friends did and do now-reposting the Newsweek cover and making bashing comments, people judging if caring for foster kids for just a limited time was valuable and worth her mentioning, as examples.

They should get the same questions as any man and if they can answer and substantiate their answer, great. If not, it will reveal that they are not suited for the role. Period.

All that rant to say....the question does not surprise me. Now I might go throw up! haha!
I'm 47. Straight hair until 6/2010. THANKS, thyroid!
2b, medium-fine, normal-low porosity, medium density and elasticity
CG since 7/1/2010

Cleanse: Abba Color Protect
Condition: DevaCurl OC
LI: CJ-Deep Fix, Beauticurls LI
Curl Enhancer:
CHS Curl Keeper, KCCC
Gel: Alba Strong Hold Gel, BRHG, Hugo Naturals Gel, SS FHG, CJPP
Trying/Maybe: Ecostyler,CJRM
I didn't see that debate, and I'm shocked that PBS news or NPR, the sources that I heard snippets of the debate from, didn't mention it either. I don't care for Michelle Bachman, but I agree, why is this even a relevant question to ask her. But I'm guessing that a viewer submitted this question?
3b/c, medium-coarse, low porosity, high density
HG: Jessicurl Too Shea and Kinky Curly Curling Custard
Shampoo: nonsulfate shampoo and Suave Naturals sulfate shampoo when needed
If she has made a prior public statement that she believes the wife should submit to her husband than the question would be valid as it would lead people to believe that her husband's wishes would be coming through the presidency or that she believed in traditional female roles and how would that play into her taking a very non-traditional office as a woman (at least that's how I would read into it).

If she has not made such a statement on public record (I am not sure) than the question was inappropriate and rude. Which may be the only time I defend the woman. She horrifies me.
If she has made a prior public statement that she believes the wife should submit to her husband than the question would be valid as it would lead people to believe that her husband's wishes would be coming through the presidency or that she believed in traditional female roles and how would that play into her taking a very non-traditional office as a woman (at least that's how I would read into it).

If she has not made such a statement on public record (I am not sure) than the question was inappropriate and rude. Which may be the only time I defend the woman. She horrifies me.
Originally Posted by KookyCurl
She has made such public statements, back in 2006. She quoted scripture as a means of explaining how she came to 'submitting' to her husband. The scripture she quoted did NOT mention a husband submitting to his wife, only the wife to the husband.

I think in light of this, it's a totally valid question.

Also, it goes to the broader issue that there are a whole lot of public statements Michele Bachmann has made that she is now shying away from. She also lies/fabricates things a lot.

Here is some context and background on the debate question, from this article, which had some thoughtful analysis, I thought.

In 2006, when Michele Bachmann was recounting her career path at church, she explained that her husband Marcus Bachmann told her to get her post doctorate in Tax Law, and that while she hated the idea, “The Lord says, ‘Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands.’”

Last night at the Republican debate in Iowa Byron York of the Washington Examiner referenced this now-famous quote and asked Michele Bachmann if she would remain submissive to her husband were she elected president.

This was Michele Bachmann’s answer:

“Marcus and I will have been married for 33 years this September 10. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. What submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband. And he respects me as his wife. That’s how we operate our marriage. We respect each other. We love each other.”
Considering that the christian faith calls for women to be submissive to their husbands, I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask any woman candidate.

Personally, I think our first woman president should be non-theist, or unmarried if she is also christian (or any of the big-3 abrahamic religions). There's just too much chance of submission in religious households.
Considering that the christian faith calls for women to be submissive to their husbands, I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask any woman candidate.

Personally, I think our first woman president should be non-theist, or unmarried if she is also christian (or any of the big-3 abrahamic religions). There's just too much chance of submission in religious households.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Really? I have to disagree here. She deserves the question because she has stated that she is submissive to her husband. Do you honestly believe every woman out there who follows a religion is submissive to her husband? That is ridiculous stereotyping. You are the reason it is so hard for a woman to be taken seriously in politics. Your expectations of what a woman needs to be versus what a man needs to be are unrealistic.
Minneapolis, MN
Considering that the christian faith calls for women to be submissive to their husbands, I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask any woman candidate.

Personally, I think our first woman president should be non-theist, or unmarried if she is also christian (or any of the big-3 abrahamic religions). There's just too much chance of submission in religious households.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Really? I have to disagree here. She deserves the question because she has stated that she is submissive to her husband. Do you honestly believe every woman out there who follows a religion is submissive to her husband? That is ridiculous stereotyping. You are the reason it is so hard for a woman to be taken seriously in politics. Your expectations of what a woman needs to be versus what a man needs to be are unrealistic.
Originally Posted by Poodlehead


You can't pin that on me.

The dogma of each of the Big 3 religions state that wives are to be submissie to their husbands, and if a woman candidate states she is religious, I'm going to take her at her word and assume she is submissive...until/unless she states otherwise.

Believe me, I wish it were different. I wish christianity, judaism, and islam didn't oppress women...but they do. I don't believe any of those religions are good for women. And I don't believe it's good for our country that we have a secret requirement that ALL of our presidents be practicing christians.
I can agree with you on how our presidents shouldn't all just be practicing Christians, considering this country is supposed to be tolerate of other religions and people came here so they could practice freely and be accepted as well.I wish that religion was completely separated from the government but, that won't happen. Many people live life and make decisions based on their faith.

As for sumission of wives to their husbands, I think only extremely conservative religious people of christianity do that. I'd laugh in my husband's face if he mentioned me submitting to him. But I do feel that a lot of Christianity in America is hypocritical so, I'm not a strong follower just observer.
Considering that the christian faith calls for women to be submissive to their husbands, I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask any woman candidate.

Personally, I think our first woman president should be non-theist, or unmarried if she is also christian (or any of the big-3 abrahamic religions). There's just too much chance of submission in religious households.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Really? I have to disagree here. She deserves the question because she has stated that she is submissive to her husband. Do you honestly believe every woman out there who follows a religion is submissive to her husband? That is ridiculous stereotyping. You are the reason it is so hard for a woman to be taken seriously in politics. Your expectations of what a woman needs to be versus what a man needs to be are unrealistic.
Originally Posted by Poodlehead


You can't pin that on me.

The dogma of each of the Big 3 religions state that wives are to be submissie to their husbands, and if a woman candidate states she is religious, I'm going to take her at her word and assume she is submissive...until/unless she states otherwise.

Believe me, I wish it were different. I wish christianity, judaism, and islam didn't oppress women...but they do. I don't believe any of those religions are good for women. And I don't believe it's good for our country that we have a secret requirement that ALL of our presidents be practicing christians.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
See, now you're qualifying it. THAT I can agree with, but I think a woman politician can belong to a major religion without you assuming they will be submissive to their husbands. It's like when Kennedy ran for president and people worried he would answer to the Vatican before the needs of the country. It was a needless worry, as is yours.
Minneapolis, MN
Really? I have to disagree here. She deserves the question because she has stated that she is submissive to her husband. Do you honestly believe every woman out there who follows a religion is submissive to her husband? That is ridiculous stereotyping. You are the reason it is so hard for a woman to be taken seriously in politics. Your expectations of what a woman needs to be versus what a man needs to be are unrealistic.
Originally Posted by Poodlehead


You can't pin that on me.

The dogma of each of the Big 3 religions state that wives are to be submissie to their husbands, and if a woman candidate states she is religious, I'm going to take her at her word and assume she is submissive...until/unless she states otherwise.

Believe me, I wish it were different. I wish christianity, judaism, and islam didn't oppress women...but they do. I don't believe any of those religions are good for women. And I don't believe it's good for our country that we have a secret requirement that ALL of our presidents be practicing christians.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
See, now you're qualifying it. THAT I can agree with, but I think a woman politician can belong to a major religion without you assuming they will be submissive to their husbands. It's like when Kennedy ran for president and people worried he would answer to the Vatican before the needs of the country. It was a needless worry, as is yours.
Originally Posted by Poodlehead

I should have phrased my first response better. I assumed we were talking about presidential candidates, and, since America has a secret requirement that all presidential candidates be practicing christians, I stated that all women candidates should be asked that question. That was a lot of assuming, and I should have been clearer that I was only speaking of practicing-christian-female-candidates being asked that question.

I do not think it is a "needless worry". With the current state of the conservative movement being heavy with fundamentalist christians, I think we should be asking these questions. I do not want gay-hater MARCUS Bachmann running this country...do you?
Heavens no! But I see I was making a finer distinction than you were.
Minneapolis, MN
I do think it was a legitimate question to ask Ms. Bachmann, as she has stated that she is submissive to her husband and she is promoting "family values." I don't think Chris Wallace was being sexist, and I'm glad that Fox News actually put that issue upfront, rather than hiding it.
Do I think every female candidate should be asked that? No! Not even those who profess themselves to be Christian. I think this was legitimate for Ms. Bachmann because she had publicly stated it and it was something that had been brought up recently about her.

It is true that over all female candidates get treated more harshly than male candidates. We still live in a sexist society. Its in both parties, unfortunately. Even though the Democratic party claims to fight for women's equality, it runs rampant in that party too. Granted, the Democratic party has fought for some women's issues...but really not hard enough in my opinion.
Many people that I know naively think that women and men are treated equally in our society (with only rare exceptions...like the mean mainstream (liberal) media). My husband thinks it is a dead issue. He doesn't argue this one with me, as I state adamantly that it is still a problem...but he believes it isn't an issue, nevertheless.
I think many people think we're "Post-Feminism" and that we need to stop whining so much.
I am all for speaking out against mistreatment of female candidates, from either party. I think Palin was mistreated, compared to her male cohorts. I think many complaints against Palin were legitimate...don't get me wrong...but at the beginning especially, people were bashing her about her Down's Syndrome kid, about her being a working mom (governor and a mom of a Down's Syndrome kid...oh the horror!!!), making fun of her voice, making fun of her looks (or focusing too much on it).
We aren't that evolved of a society...sorry to tell ya.
Amneris and curlypearl like this.
That's right, I said it! I wear scrunchies!!

I am a sulfate washing, cone slabbing, curly lovin' s.o.b. The CG police haven't caught me yet.


3a/3b
Jumping in late, but given that she's said in the past that Christian wives are to submit to their husbands *and* that she's made large decisions in her life and career based on her husband's decree (for lack of a better word), I think it was a valid question. Completely.
Amneris likes this.
"And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
Stolen.
Also late but I absolutely think it was a fair question. I've read a little about the submission ideas. It's ABSOLUTE submission, even when the husband is wrong or abusive and violent or behaving in a non-Christian manner. And absolute in that it covers every area, not just family and matrimonial issues. Michelle Bachmann has said previously that she studied tax law because her husband told her to even though it seemed crazy to her. What if he tells her to send attack drones to Chelsea and the Castro to cure the barbarians?
If someone who is running for persident of the US has vowed to obey another person absolutely above all other considerations like the Constitution, the law, reason and common sense, you bet I will take that into consideration.
Amneris and curlypearl like this.
To Trenell, MizKerri and geeky:
I pray none of you ever has to live in a communist state.

Geeky is my hero. She's the true badass. The badass who doesn't even need to be a badass. There aren't enough O's in cool to describe her.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com